Karnataka High Court
B K Purnesh vs State Of Karnataka on 28 November, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32116 OF 2012 (BDA)
Between:
B.K.Purnesh
S/o D.N.Keshavamurthy
Aged about 39 years
R/o No.40 'A' Block
C I L Colony
Sanjaynagar
Bangalore - 94 ... Petitioner
(By Shri * T.K.Mohandas, Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore - 01
Represented by its
Revenue Secretary
2. Bangalore Development Authority
Kumara Krupa Road
T.Chowdaiah Road
Bangalore - 20
Represented by its Commissioner ... Respondents
(By Shri K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, HCGP * for R-1,
* Shri Ashwin S.Halady, Advocate for R-2)
* Corrected vide court order dated 10-1-2013
-2-
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to
refund the stamp duty and registration fee of Rs.53,280/- and
land tax paid from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2009 total Rs.4,272/- and
interest on sale consideration amount of Rs.3,43,450/- at the
rate of 18% p.a. and interest on stamp duty and registration fee
Rs.53,280/- at the rate of 18% p.a. Rs.70,873/-, etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B'
Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority seeks time to file statement of objections. However, the facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner contends that he had applied for the allotment of a site to the Bangalore Development Authority and accordingly, was granted a site measuring 40 feet x 60 feet bearing No.42, Banashankari VI Stage, V Block, Bangalore, dated 13.3.2002 and a sale deed was executed on payment of a sale consideration of Rs.3,43,450/- and the same was registered on payment of registration fee and stamp duty by the petitioner, in total a sum of Rs.53,280/-. The sale deed was duly executed -3- and registered on 10.12.2002. The petitioner claims that khata was also transferred on the basis of the same and the petitioner was paying property taxes in respect of the same. When the petitioner proceeded to put up construction on the said site, it was learnt that there was a mistake of identity of the property and the site which was granted to the petitioner actually was the property that was in possession of the Forest Department. The petitioner, therefore, was constrained to ascertain the claim by recourse to the Right to Information Act and it was disclosed that it was indeed in the possession of the Forest Department. This entailed the cancellation of the sale deed made in favour of the petitioner by the Bangalore Development Authority. Further, it was brought to its attention of the mistake committed. Thereafter, the Bangalore Development Authority proceeded to allot an alternative site bearing No.776, Banashankari VI Stage, VII Block, Bangalore, measuring 12 x 18 metres. It was found that the site was a corner site and a plumb site which could not have been allotted as an alternative site to the petitioner. Therefore, the allotment was changed to -4- site No.1808, Banashankari VI Stage, IV Block, measuring 12 x 18 metres and a sale deed was executed, dated 24.5.2010. The petitioner was called upon to meet the registration fee and stamp duty in respect of such transaction, as well. The petitioner, however, was not refunded the stamp duty and registration fee which he had incurred in the first sale transaction, which was a futility.
3. In the circumstances stated above, the petitioner contends that the Bangalore Development Authority was responsible for the foul up and was obliged to refund and meet the loss of the petitioner to that extent. Though the loss occasioned to the petitioner was much greater, even the refund of actual stamp duty and registration fee has not been made in spite of his repeated requests. Therefore, the petitioner draws attention to a circumstance, whereby the Bangalore Development Authority was compelled to refund the amount as directed by this Court. Therefore, it is precedented and seeks a similar relief. The petitioner, is claiming not only the stamp duty and registration -5- fee which he was made to incur, in a total sum of Rs.53,280/-, but also seeks reimbursement of the property tax that was paid in a sum of Rs.4,272/-, till the sale deed in his favour was cancelled.
4. The learned counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority would submit that there is no legal obligation on the part of the Bangalore Development Authority to refund such property tax that has been paid by the petitioner. The petitioner seeking to claim damages as it were could at best seek his remedy elsewhere and the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, in this regard. Since it is a monetary claim that the petitioner seeks to raise, he would have to establish the same, as a matter of fact, which should be decided after a trial. Therefore, would submit, that notwithstanding any precedent that is sought to be set up, the petitioner ought to be directed to approach the appropriate forum, as the Bangalore Development Authority would then be -6- in a position to meet the case of the petitioner on questions of fact.
5. The stand taken by the learned counsel for the respondent, Bangalore Development Authority that the question involves a dispute to the quantum of compensation which the petitioner claims and hence the petitioner ought to be relegated to some other forum, is not a contention that can be entertained. Though in the usual course, it may be so. The admitted circumstance that the petitioner has suffered the consequence of the registration of a sale deed, which was executed in respect of a site by mistake of the Bangalore Development Authority and the same mistake having been repeated once again before the present site was allotted in his favour, the petitioner has been put to much hardship, which would warrant a claim for compensation in much a greater amount, in respect of which the Bangalore Development Authority would contend that he should go before the appropriate forum is in respect of the actual loss incurred that is sought to be recovered, namely, the -7- stamp duty and registration fee and the property tax that has been paid by the petitioner. These amounts are not in dispute. Hence, there is no justification in relegating the petitioner to some other forum. It is true that, insofar, the petitioner's claim for compensation under any other head is concerned, he may have to tender evidence in support of the same. Hence, there is no warrant for any such trial, insofar this claim is concerned. The petition is allowed. The respondent - Bangalore Development Authority is directed to refund the amount of Rs.57,552/-, forthwith to the petitioner, in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Should there be a default in refund, the Bangalore Development Authority shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above, till the date of payment from the date of default.
Sd/-
JUDGE AHB